1.  The recommendations of the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries (“the Committee”) are a step in the right direction towards grounding political leaders with a stronger sense of public service and mission. We hope that Ministers and Members of Parliament (MPs) will see political office primarily as a noble undertaking which allows them to improve the lives of fellow Singaporeans, rather than as a career option to be weighed against high-earning individuals in the private sector.

2.  The Workers’ Party (WP) is of the view that the Committee’s proposal to peg ministers’ salaries to the 1,000 top income earners has created a flawed formula. These individuals make up just 0.06%¹ of the workforce and are unrepresentative of the general population. The incomes of these “super-rich” Singaporeans generally rise much faster than the rest of the population, potentially escalating the salaries of ministers in subsequent years.

3.  The Committee’s proposed formula also assumes that political talent is found only among the top 1,000 income earners. This reflects an elitist mindset that earning power is the primary indicator of one’s ability.

4.  Rather than an approach that assumes top earners are also top talent, WP recommends a whole-of-government, people-up approach to determining ministerial salaries.

5.  WP has identified this approach in the way 12 developed economies determine their politicians’ salaries. The economies are Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Sweden, Taiwan, the United Kingdom and the United States. In most of these economies, a minister’s salary is set at multiples of that of an MP, which is in turn set at the salary of a senior management grade in the civil service. This is the approach that Singapore should take, as political office is in the genre of public service.

6.  WP proposes that MPs’ allowances should be pegged to the salaries of divisional directors in the Civil Service (excluding the Administrative Service)². Civil service salaries are currently competitively benchmarked to general wage levels of Singaporeans. The salaries of ministers and the Prime Minister should be set at reasonable multiples of an MP’s allowance.

7.  WP is supportive of a variable component which takes into account both national objectives being achieved through a whole-of-government effort, as well as the individual performance of ministers. While the suggested National Bonus incorporates some indices, WP believes that the formula should reflect that some national goals are longer-term in nature, requiring an assessment over the term of a government, not annually; some bonus payments may need to be deferred. We also propose to do away with the Annual Variable Component as this is unnecessary, since there is already a National Bonus based on national economic outcomes. The sum of the total variable components should be capped at a reasonable number of months.

8.  WP further believes that the procedure for any review or change of the salary structure for political office should be transparent and subject to Parliamentary approval.

9.  WP’s MPs will elaborate and expand upon the above proposals during the 16 January 2012 debate on the motion in Parliament to adopt the Committee’s recommendations.

THE WORKERS’ PARTY
6 January 2012

¹ 1,000 divided by the total Singaporean labour force of 1,712,600 (Singaporeans in the Workforce, October 2011).

² This refers to the MX9 (Superscale) grade, which draws a salary of about $10,000 per month.

Media contacts:

Mr Gerald Giam
Chair, WP Media Team
E-mail: gerald.giam@wp.sg

Mr Pritam Singh
Vice-Chair, WP Media Team
Email: pritam.singh@wp.sg

The Workers’ Party is deeply concerned about the frequency of MRT train service disruptions along the North-South and East-West (NS-EW) lines and the Circle Line, which are managed by SMRT Corporation (SMRT). We are particularly dismayed by the scale of the service disruption between Marina Bay and Braddell MRT stations on the evening of Thursday, 15th December, and how the crisis was managed.

Over 127,000 commuters were affected that evening, and 4,000 passengers were trapped for up to an hour in the packed trains, with limited ventilation in the carriages. At least two passengers had to be hospitalised and others had reportedly fainted. We note that train services were disrupted again on 17th December on the North-South line and services on the entire NW-EW lines will commence service only at 10am on 18th December, affecting thousands more commuters.

We are concerned that the apparent increasing frequency of train service disruptions may be reflective of much deeper infrastructural and technical problems plaguing the 24-year old NS-EW lines.

We question whether these service disruptions were due to insufficient investments in maintenance and upgrades, considering that the MRT system has come under heavy strain over the past 10 years due to the rapid increase in population and ridership. If so, were the lack of essential investments a result of pressure on the public listed MRT operators to minimise costs and maximise profits for the benefit of their shareholders, at the expense of the 2.3 million commuters?

A more immediate concern is the apparent inability of the MRT operators and the relevant government agencies to deal with crises of this scale, despite several large scale civil emergency exercises held in recent years, like Exercise Northstar. We dread to think how much worse the situation could be in the event of a terrorist attack or train collision.

We ask if the Land Transport Authority (LTA), as the regulator of the MRT operators, could have been more vigilant in ensuring that quality of service and safety standards, including train maintenance and operations, were met by SMRT.

The Government cannot stand at arms’ length from this extremely serious disruption to the train services. In the matter of this essential public good, the Government is accountable to the people of Singapore for the performance of the MRT operators to ensure the safety and well-being of commuters.

THE WORKERS PARTY
17 December 2011

–

Media contacts:

Mr Gerald Giam
Chair, WP Media Team
Email: gerald.giam@wp.sg

Mr Pritam Singh
Vice Chair, WP Media Team
Email: pritam.singh@wp.sg

The Workers’ Party notes the Malaysian government’s proposal to repeal the Internal Security Act (ISA).

The Workers’ Party manifestos, including the 2011 election manifesto, proposed the abolition of the ISA in Singapore. This repeal would destroy the prospect of any government using the wide ranging powers therein to curtail its critics and opponents. Even where there are suspects accused of espionage, trials can still be held, with modified procedures if state secrets are at risk.

Nevertheless, the Party acknowledges the need for effective measures against terrorism. As such, our manifesto also stated that the government should be enabled by a dedicated anti-terrorism law to make swift arrests and detain suspects without trial. However, these suspects must be afforded real avenues to challenge the legality of their arrests through the courts and an advisory board. These bodies should be empowered to order the person’s release if not satisfied as to the legality of the detention.

The Workers’ Party

16 Sep 2011.

We welcome the decision by Peoples’ Association (PA) to lift the restriction imposed on permit applicants on who they can or cannot invite to functions at sites now controlled by the PA. The restriction had caused many Aljunied residents to feel torn and in an emotional dilemma.

HDB and PA’s political role

We note, however, that contrary to PA’s earlier response that the decision to lease sites for community activities was “not new, nor is it peculiar to Aljunied GRC”, it now emerges that HDB’s decision was indeed precipitated by the General Election results in Aljunied GRC and the desire to secure key sites for PA activities at which grassroots advisors would be guests.

HDB has also not given any reason why a total of 26 strategic sites in Aljunied GRC had to be given up to PA’s exclusive control.

Further, the remarks by Desmond Choo, the defeated PAP candidate for Hougang SMC, confirm that the key purpose of a request to PA to lease sites from HDB was to enable defeated PAP candidates to re-emerge at key community sites in the capacity of grassroots advisors, which in his case is to expand his outreach to residents in Hougang SMC.

If PA accedes to Mr Choo’s request for 6 sites at Hougang SMC, and HDB approves it, it will further confirm the partisan nature of this decision by these government bodies.

WP’s Open Policy on Guests

We are puzzled by PA’s claim that “there have been occasions when organisers of grassroots and community events applied to use sites managed by Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC), and were told that they were expected to invite the local MP.”

We took over the management of TC on 1st August and no instruction was given either by the Chairman and Vice-chairmen to the staff on the issue of who permit applicants should invite. If MND has any information to the contrary, we will investigate the matter. In any case, it should be clear to all that there has never been any policy in both the former Hougang Town Council (HGTC) and AHTC to set conditions on the guest list. This is not a `new position’ as claimed by the PA, and is self-evident from the presence of PAP grassroots advisors at events held on Town Council-managed land in Hougang over the last 20 years and in Aljunied GRC after the General Elections.

PA’s assertions against Hougang Town Council

The grassroots advisor of Hougang SMC, Desmond Choo was reported to complain about how HGTC has curbed the activities of PAP grassroots. I am perplexed by the complaint. Compared to opposition party candidates who lost at election with no “toe hold” at all at the constituency in which he/she contested, the PAP candidate re-emerges as advisor to the PA grassroots organization which has a big community club and RC offices and centres at every zone of the constituency to operate from. How could elected opposition curb such activities?

Desmond Choo has raised some specific issues about HGTC in the past. Our detailed response is in Mr Low Thia Khiang’s Media Release on Hougang Town Council Management of Public Sites issued today which will show that Hougang Town Council has acted fairly to all parties.

Nevertheless, I am prepared to work with Desmond Choo if he faces difficulty from town council in using the sites he wanted for activities.

PA’s assertions against Aljunied-Hougang Town Council

As for Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC), PA cited two incidents which reportedly occurred during the handover period of May to July 2011, before the transfer of management on 1 August. AHTC itself was only legally constituted on 27 May 2011.

During the handover period, the former Managing Agent continued to deal with these matters, without any instructions issued from the Chairman or Vice-Chairmen of AHTC.

The same open policy with respect to guest invitations applies. There have never been any conditions about who residents need to invite to use AHTC-managed land.

Specifically in relation to the use of the open plaza in front of Block 151A Serangoon North Avenue 1, it had already been answered by the Chairman of AHTC in the Straits Times interview of 19 August that the decision had been taken by the former Managing Agent for reasons stated then.

Till date, AHTC has only received 2 applications from RCs from Bedok Reservoir Division and duly approved both of them, pending the RCs’ fee payment. On 15th August 2011 the PA sent an email application to hold a Mini Workforce Training Support Scheme road show from 3rd to 4th September 2011. This application is being processed.

Apart from the above there were no other applications received by the current administration prior to 19 August 2011 for functions by the RCs. There were also no calls made by the PA or RCs to the AHTC to do enquiries of any sort.

Conclusion

This episode has clearly illustrated how key government agencies with intense outreach capabilities can be mobilized to advance the political interests of the ruling party, and to undermine the mandate of opposition MPs given by the electorate.

We trust Singaporeans can assess what is fair for themselves.

YAW SHIN LEONG
MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT (HOUGANG)
VICE-CHAIRMAN, ALJUNIED-HOUGANG TOWN COUNCIL

Background

In 1991, when the Workers’ Party (WP) took over the management of the Hougang Town Council (HGTC), the first challenge it faced was to manage the common property in a fair and transparent manner by balancing the interests of all parties concerned.

In response to complaints of noise pollution and other disturbances by the residents, HGTC had to formulate a policy on the use of common areas under its management.

HGTC in implementing the policy was guided by the need for consistency across the board, regardless of who the applicant was or which organization was applying, including the Workers’ Party grassroots committee in Hougang. The policy applied to all interested parties who want to use the venue for functions or activities. This includes individual residents, religious groups, and other organizations.

The fact remains that over the years, Residents’ Committees (RCs) in Hougang had made use of common areas to organize activities regardless of whether approval had been given by HGTC or not. In the last 21 years, the various RC zones in Hougang Constituency had never ceased holding their functions at common areas. If the HGTC had curbed their functions or had made it difficult for them to access the sites, they would not have been able to hold any of their functions.

Besides RC centres at each zone, which are usually strategically located and convenient to the residents, they are now saying that it is unsatisfactory to just organize activities at these centres and the community club or state land; they want to have control over common property to increase their visibility and have wider outreach to promote PAP candidates who lost at the last election but are re-emerging as “advisors”.

In attempting to sidetrack the issue of what is the “real” role of the People’s Association (PA) funded by taxpayers’ money and to conceal the political motivation behind this unprecedented policy of excluding such common property from Town Council management, they now issue a long list of untrue accusations that I shall rebut point by point.

Untrue Claims about Rejection of GROs’ Applications to Use Common Areas

1. PA claimed that “in 2001, under the current Constituency Director (Hougang), the GROs made fresh attempts to apply for the use of common property under the HGTC. Their requests were again mostly rejected.” The reasons given for rejection were noise pollution and prohibition of certain activities like washing and cooking at the void decks. On many occasions, no reasons were furnished.

Response: I would appreciate it if PA can show how many applications were rejected instead of making general and vague statements.

We have gone through all rejected applications. The above cited reasons were not found in any. HGTC too has records of all applications since 1993 that were approved.

2. It was stated that “in 2004, the HGTC issued a letter to Hougang Constituency Office (CO) that they “have ceased the issuance of permits for the holding of functions in front of the Hougang Zone ‘1’ RC Centre at Block 2 Hougang Avenue 3 since 2002”. Again, no reason was given by the HGTC. “

Response: Mr Desmond Choo probably referred to the HGTC’s response to the RC’s attempt to apply for permit to hold Hari Raya/Christmas function in Dec 2004. He failed to highlight the fact that this applied only to the open space fronting Blk 2 Hougang Avenue 3 and that the HGTC had in 2002 notified the RC Chairman then, one Mr Derrick Ong of this policy. HGTC too had explained to Mr Derrick Ong the rationale behind this decision and that the policy applied to all applications for use of the said space including for religious functions.

Despite having been notified of the policy, Mr Derrick Ong proceeded to put up the tentage in Dec 2004 but it was dismantled after he referred the matter to the Police who supported the dismantling of the tentage after speaking to both the HGTC and the RC Chairman. HGTC however did not stop the Hari Raya/Christmas function by the RC which continued at the void deck of Block 2 Hougang Avenue 3.

3. PA complaint that “in 2001, Hougang Zone ‘1’ RC organised a Constituency Martial Arts at the basketball court behind Blk 2 Hougang Ave 3 at 9pm with about 800 participants when the lights were suddenly switched off. The event was supposed to finish at 10pm but had to be terminated prematurely.”

Response: I thought PA claimed that for the past 20 years, most grassroots activities have been confined to within the Community Club (CC), Residents’ Committee (RC) Centres and on state land?

This is evidence that RC was able to organize activity at hard courts even though the basketball court was managed by HGTC and no permit was applied for to HGTC for the use. With them holding such big functions on common properties managed by the Town Council and using electricity from the Town Council, it is more likely it was overloading that caused the trip.

4. Claim that “Hougang GROs subsequently stopped making applications to the HGTC and kept the activities within either the CC or the RC Centres. Many residents are not keen to participate in activities at the RC centres as these centres are small and stuffy. The air-conditioning systems are not strong enough to cope with large numbers of people. For larger scale events, Hougang GROs usually apply for state land to hold their functions. They have to incur much higher cost for the use of state land due to the requirement to erect tentages, stage and provide planking. Most of the state lands are located away from residents’ homes so, to attract their participation, usually two-way transport is expected, adding to the cost of organising the events.”

Response: This is untrue. The RC continued to hold functions at hard courts, void decks and open space over the years for many occasions and the TC has never stopped these activities even when some of these caused noise nuisance to the residents of the blocks eg Blk 332 Hougang Ave 5 National Day event at the basketball court.

Untrue Claims for Lack of Responsiveness by HGTC

5. Claim that “In 2006, Hougang CO wrote to HGTC to open the void deck storeroom and riser rooms for a bomb sweep for then Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong’s visit. The request was made a few days before the visit. There was no response from HTC despite reminders until a few hours before the actual bomb sweep.”

Response: HGTC responded to CO to advise that it was important to conduct the bomb sweep nearer to the time of visit to ensure that there was no opportunity for anyone to plant bombs in the last minutes prior to SM’s visit. It is shocking that the natural concern of the HGTC for SM’s safety is now politicized by the PA.

6. Claim that “In 2009, Hougang Zone ‘3’ RC sent a letter to HGTC to ask for approval to install a CCTV camera outside the RC centre to enhance the security of the centre in conjunction with the RC’s Cyclical Maintenance Programme. The request was ignored by HTC. Till today, HTC did not respond despite repeated phone calls for a reply. “

Response: HGTC has no record of the request. Please show proof that this was received by HGTC.

7. Claim that “In 2010, Hougang Citizens’ Consultative Committee sent letters of invitation to the HTC to attend briefings by the HDB on HUDC privatisation but HTC turned down the invitations.”

Response: The HDB was advised that since the TC and the MP has no role in the process involved prior to the legal privatization of the HUDC, the presence of the TC was therefore not relevant.

False Allegation of “Subtle Sabotages”

8. Allegation that “In November 2010, Hougang GROs organised a Lift Upgrading Precinct Polling Exercise cum RC Festive Celebrations for Blocks 351 to 352, Blocks 354 to 357, Hougang Avenue 7. The HTC was invited to attend a site visit at Block 352, Hougang Ave 7 as it was the most ideal venue. The HTC did not turn up for the site visit. Instead, many construction materials coincidentally appeared beneath the identified block. Hougang GROs had to change the venue to Block 357 and re-do their publicity materials and tickets at the last minute.”

Response : Works to repair the external canopies of Blk 352 were underway when the HDB decided to hold the polling/exhibition exercise for LUP. The repair works which involved hacking of the mosaic tiles of the canopy was required to be carried out by the HDB as part of their ongoing program to rectify external facades following various incidences of falling façade claddings. The demolished tiles were removed daily from the canopies and deposited at the turf area fronting the block for disposal off site. HDB did not conduct a site inspection of the block until just prior to the day of polling to know that there was debris collected at the site. The Head of Hougang Branch Office had called the TC to request for the clearing of the site and arrangements were made to immediately dispose off the debris. However, there was a platform at site that was used by the contractor to access the high external facades and as this cannot be easily removed, the Head of Hougang Branch Office was advised that it was not possible to do so. Instead, the TC had suggested that the site where the platform was would be cordoned off and the area cleaned up for the polling exercise.

The HDB then decided instead to relocate the exercise to Blk 357 instead.

Therefore, the allegation that HGTC had purposely dumped rubbish at Blk 352 to sabotage the polling exercise is unfounded and is calculated to cast doubt on TC’s integrity.

Unfounded Claim of HGTC Limiting GROs’ Publicity of Activities and Programmes

9. Claim that “The banner poles directly outside Hougang Zone ‘3’ RC Centre facing the basketball court were blocked by tall hedges planted by the HTC. The banners can only be seen by residents at a close range.”

Response: The turf area was badly eroded and soil erosion had caused chokes in drains and breeding of mosquitoes. Planting was carried out not only to this area but along the entire stretch fronting the block. Care was however taken to ensure that there were no blockages to the RC’s signs.

10. Claim that “HGTC also finds excuses to relocate Hougang RCs’ notice boards to less prominent locations. In 2004, HTC wrote to Hougang CO to look for new walls to hang 34 RC notice boards as the original walls were “converted” to “featured walls”. These notice boards, originally placed at the lift lobby, were removed to facilitate painting works at the lift lobby. After the painting, the notice boards were placed at less visible spots, either under poor lighting or away from human traffic flow.”

Response: Letters were given to the RCs to explain the relocation exercise ie the TC in upgrading all the lift lobby walls had decided that there was to be no placements of notice boards on the newly tiled walls for aesthetic purposes. The TC’s notice boards were also affected. However, the RCs were given the first choice to decide on the new location that they prefer to place their notice boards. The better locations were thus all taken by the RC and the TC were left with second choice locations.

All the RC’s did joint inspections with the TC for this relocation exercise willingly and all were conducted smoothly.

False claims that GROs were fined

11 Claim that “Hougang GROs’ efforts in reaching out to residents at common areas managed by HGTC have been inconvenienced by HTC’s un-cooperative behaviours over the years. The GROs have now stopped making applications to HGTC. Occasionally, the RCs spill their activities over to the void decks or erect simple set-up like hanging backdrop on the wall at void decks on the event day to increase their circulation space. HGTC is fast to issue fines on the spot or will not hesitate to confiscate banners/backdrops hung at the walls of void decks.”

Response: Check record and found this to be a baseless claim. There was however one incidence at Blk 316 where the senior citizens corner of the PA had held a function and erected a tentage at the turf area. The tentage was not dismantled after the function. Despite the fact that the TC visited the members of the centre to advise them to dismantle the tentage since it was already several days after the function, the advice of the TC was ignored. A notice of offence was then issued. The tentage was then immediately removed and till today the PA did not pay the fine and the TC had never pursued the matter since the tentage was dismantled.

Conclusion:

Both MND and PA are bankrupt on their ideas on how to justify the exclusion of the common property in HDB estates from the management of opposition-managed Aljunied-Hougang TC. This is unprecedented and politically motivated.

Mr Desmond Choo’s statement was thus intended to mislead all that HGTC had stopped issuing permits for all sites which RC intended to use for their functions and to use this as the reason to support their application for exclusive use of various common areas in Hougang Estate.

LOW THIA KHIANG
MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR ALJUNIED
FORMER CHAIRMAN, HOUGANG TOWN COUNCIL

This release seeks to enlighten the public about what transpired in the weeks after the May General Election, which has led to the current controversy about use of public spaces by residents of Aljunied GRC to organise events.

Background Facts
On 21 June 2011, the interim Secretary of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) received an email from the Housing and Development Board (HDB) entitled: “Sites Excluded from the Management of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council”. The email attached a list of sites to be excluded from AHTC management, including 26 sites commonly used for community activities which had previously been managed by the former Aljunied Town Council. No background nor rationale was given for the decision.

Upon further and repeated enquiries from AHTC, HDB revealed on 13 July 2011 that these sites had been leased to the People’s Association (PA), in 2 tranches – on 27 May 2011 and 13 June 2011. The AHTC had thus been informed retrospectively of this decision, which to our knowledge has not been published anywhere.

A check on the sites, which were part of the common property managed by the former Aljunied Town Council but now leased to PA, showed that many of them are strategically located, being hard courts or amphitheatres highly suitable for organising social activities. We were puzzled about the intention behind the move, which occurred before the new management took over the estate. We are left to conclude that the decision by the HDB to shift management of these common properties from the Town Council to the PA was precipitated by the victory of the Workers’ Party in Aljunied GRC in the General Elections.

In order not to subject residents to unnecessary inconvenience and confusion, I sought a meeting with the HDB for clarification, and on 13 July 2011 conveyed to the HDB AHTC’s willingness to discuss the matter further with the PA, to explore joint use of the excluded sites. HDB then followed up with the PA. In an email to me dated 15 Aug 2011, the PA indicated that “booking by WP will not be allowed”, which we assume includes bookings for activities organised by WP MPs for residents.

Effect of HDB’s Decision as Landowner
During the weeks in July / early August leading to the lunar Seventh Month festivities, residents of Paya Lebar Division gave feedback that they were informed by the PA grassroots organisations to apply for the use of the said sites to the Paya Lebar Citizens Consultative Committee (CCC) instead of to the Town Council as was the previous practice. We also received feedback that those who had applied to the CCC for the permits were told verbally that they could not invite the elected WP MP or they would risk their applications being turned down in subsequent years.

Residents have told us that they are confused by the new requirements of the CCC and annoyed by the intense politicking by the PA grassroots organizations. They felt torn and in an emotional dilemma.

Political Implications
It appears to us that the unilateral decision by the HDB to lease these sites to the PA and to have them excluded from common property under the management of AHTC without any consultation with the AHTC or its elected members is politically motivated and an abuse of power.

First, the HDB as part of the government machinery is abusing its power as land owner of common property in HDB estates to help PA to achieve the political objectives of a) preventing elected MPs from holding activities at the excluded sites which are strategically located and convenient to residents; and b) curtailing the ground presence of the elected MPs, by warning the residents that their applications for events at those sites may not be approved in subsequent years if WP MPs were invited.

Secondly, the PA, a statutory board funded by tax payers’ money and chaired by the Prime Minister, appears to capitalize on its close connection with the government to serve the political interests of the ruling party. The PA is leveraging on HDB to enable PAP candidates who lost at the last elections to re-emerge at community events as “advisors” to PA grassroots organizations. The move to let PA control the sites previously managed by the Town Council would give PAP candidates a ground advantage and permanent presence, in advance preparation for the next elections.

Conclusion
The PM has just called for political harmony and national solidarity in Singapore, and said that “we must have a harmonious political system where we make important decisions in the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans.”

Regrettably, there appears to be a dissonance between the language of national unity employed by the Prime Minister and the actions of the HDB and PA in Aljunied GRC.

SYLVIA LIM
CHAIRMAN,
WORKERS’ PARTY AND ALJUNIED-HOUGANG TOWN COUNCIL

The Workers’ Party is pleased to note that the Prime Minister has addressed several areas of concern to Singaporeans, namely housing, education, jobs, healthcare costs and social safety nets.

The Prime Minister acknowledged that infrastructure programmes, especially in the areas of housing and public transport, could not keep up with the rate of increase of our population. With respect to housing, the decision to raise the household income ceiling from $8,000 to $10,000 will be a welcome change for many middle-income earners. However, we note that this will add to the current high demand and hence more Built-to-Order (BTO) flats will need to be built to ease the current supply crunch. Nevertheless, the affordability of flats continues to be a concern, and Workers’ Party remains of the view that the government needs to review the formula of pricing new flats and the recommended length of HDB housing loans.

In addition, the Prime Minister has also acknowledged that there are distressed families who have lost their homes for various reasons. The issue of homeless families is real and has severe ramifications, with possible cross-generational effects. The pending government review into those who are rendered homeless should look into some flexibility of criteria to qualify for rental flats and more than two concessionary loans.

As for education, the increased spaces for Singaporeans to pursue university education locally appears to be in line with earlier announcements by the Ministry of Education to increase the cohort participation rate entering university to 30%, up from the current 25% (approx). Regarding Special Education (SPED), the government’s announcement of more resources and places will partially alleviate the stress on parents of children with special needs. However, as pointed out in the Workers’ Party Manifesto 2011, more can be done to put such children and families on an even keel vis-à-vis other children, especially having fixed rather than means-tested fees, and better career development opportunities for SPED teachers.

Concerning jobs, the Workers’ Party Manifesto 2011 had pointed to the need to calibrate the inflows of foreigners at all levels and by industry, taking into account the suitability of Singaporeans for those industries, productivity targets and sustainability. To this end, the announcement that the government will review the eligibility criteria for Employment Passes is a step in the right direction, especially since a larger proportion of our local workforce is now tertiary-educated and will compete at these levels. At the same time, there is a need for the government to provide more support to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) to cope with the rise in manpower costs and rentals.

Finally, the government has rightly acknowledged the inadequacy of our current social safety nets, as some initiatives to strengthen it were unveiled. The Workers’ Party had in Parliament over the last few years called for extension of the Primary Care Partnership Scheme and highlighted the plight of families of the elderly sick facing high costs of medical care and drugs. The Workers’ Party welcomes the government’s attention to these matters. It remains to be seen how affordable such medical necessities become after the review.

In the wake of a landmark General Election, which has seen the Workers’ Party increase its Parliamentary representation, the Party will continue raise issues of concern to Singaporeans and hold the government to account for its promises and the performance of its programmes.

The Workers’ Party
16 Aug 2011

—
For media queries, please contact:

Mr Gerald Giam
Chair, Media Team

Mr Pritam Singh
Vice-chair, Media Team

Email: media@wp.sg

Forty-six years is hardly a significant span of time. Yet in just this short period, Singapore has transformed from a young nation coping with the challenges of independence, to a developed economy and a vibrant metropolis. We can now marvel at our many accomplishments and accolades, and celebrate our diversity and harmony.

Our country’s success is for all Singaporeans to share and celebrate. We have arrived at where we are today through the toil of many generations of Singaporeans, rich and poor, professionals and labourers, of all races and national origins.

This National Day, the Workers’ Party wishes to pay a special tribute to the first generation of Singaporeans who struggled to build our nation during the early decades of independence. They are now our parents and grandparents, uncles and aunts; the elderly cleaners; the retired civil servants and teachers; the first National Servicemen.

This generation embodies the true Singapore spirit—the determination to work hard, overcome the odds and carve out a better life for their children. They serve as an shining example for many future generations to follow.

History may only remember the kings and not the soldiers, but let us never forget the contributions of the first generation of Singaporeans. More than anyone else, they deserve to enjoy the fruits of our nation’s success.

The men and women in our pioneer generation have borne society’s burdens for the past 46 years and more. They gave the best years of their lives to our nation. Our nation must now give its best in return to them. Even as we strive for progress and economic efficiency, our nation has an obligation to help this generation of Singaporeans live their latter years in dignity, comfort and fulfilment; free from worry and fear for lack of provision.

As we celebrate our 46th National Day, the Workers’ Party would like to express our heartfelt thanks to all Singaporeans, especially our pioneer generation, for their sacrifices, hard work and contributions to building our nation to what it is today.

The Workers’ Party wishes all Singaporeans—including those living abroad—a very Happy 46th National Day.

SYLVIA LIM
Chairman, Workers’ Party and Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC
8 August 2011

We refer to the announcement by the Ministry of National Development (MND) on 27 May 2011, that the Housing and Development Board (HDB) would henceforth permit void decks to be rented out to elected Members of Parliament for use as MPs’ offices to conduct Meet-the-People sessions (MPS) at the concessionary rates extended to non-profit organisations.

This announcement currently affects only Workers’ Party (WP) elected MPs, as PAP MPs employ PAP Branch Offices and PAP Community Foundation kindergartens for their MPS. While the WP appreciates HDB’s gesture, it is nothing more.

In order to properly assess the option, the WP sought further details of the brief announcement from HDB, to which the HDB replied via emails dated 10 June, 16 June and 28 June 2011.

In its replies, the HDB affirmed that it would not bear the construction cost of the office. In addition, the HDB also stated that MPs would have to pay for the reinstatement of the void deck to its original condition in the event the space was no longer required. The tenancies would also be from month to month for the duration of the MPs’ term of office.

The draft tenancy agreement furnished by HDB provides that the premises should be used for the Meet-the-People sessions and administrative tasks associated with an MP’s duties, and not for any other purpose except with the prior written consent of the HDB. While HDB’s email dated 28 June 2011 states that the MP may use the office for “some community activities, bearing in mind the space limitation”, there is uncertainty as to what kind of community activities would require the prior written consent of HDB, which consent can also be withdrawn at any time.

It is noteworthy that prior to 1991, all MPs were designated an office space at HDB void decks, before the HDB changed this policy. In 1981, the HDB built the MP’s office for the WP MP for Anson, J B Jeyaretnam. Mr Jeyaretnam initially conducted his MPS at a HDB void deck, and moved into the MP’s office built by the HDB upon its completion.

The WP has carefully considered the latest HDB’s change of policy as announced on 27 May 2011. The Party has concluded that it would be a financial burden to build offices for its MPS sessions at HDB void decks.

The six WP MPs are currently conducting MPS at eight locations (two each for Bedok Reservoir-Punggol and Serangoon wards of Aljunied GRC) to be accessible to residents. The construction of eight offices would be a significant expense, not to mention maintenance and other running costs. As WP does not have access to limitless resources, prudence dictates that WP be conservative in spending.

Some individuals have encouraged us to set up kindergartens akin to those under the PAP Community Foundation (PCF), and use these charitable institutions to host our MPS sessions. Singapore has already experienced the politically debilitating effects of kindergartens divided along party lines. This was raised by then Defence Minister Dr Goh Keng Swee on 24 Dec 1965 during the second reading of the People’s Association (Amendment) Bill. It is the WP’s current position that the encouragement of kindergartens and other educational institutions along party lines could inadvertently encourage the political polarisation of Singapore society.

In addition, in view of the constant redrawing of electoral boundaries by the Government, the long-term viability of the construction of offices for WP MPs is open to question. This is a serious consideration in view of the history of re-drawing of wards into and out of Aljunied GRC in 2006 and 2011 by the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee, without any explanation. Offices built by WP MPs today may be rendered obsolete in five years.

We thank the residents of Aljunied GRC and Hougang SMC for their understanding of the situation. We will continue to monitor closely the comfort level of the MPS at the void decks and take appropriate action if needed.

The Workers’ Party
21 Jul 2011

———
Media Contact:
Pritam Singh
Vice-chair, WP Media Team
Email: media@wp.sg

Minister for Transport Lui Tuck Yew recently criticised the Workers’ Party’s (WP) proposal for a not-for-profit National Transport Corporation to replace the current two listed public transport companies.

Mr Lui claimed that WP’s proposal had “serious downsides, chief amongst which commuters and taxpayers (yes, even those who don’t take public transport) are likely to end up paying more, and possibly, for a poorer level of service over time”.

He added that “it is the profit incentive of commercial enterprises that spurs efficiency and productivity improvements”.

Market failures in public transport

These are simplistic and tired old arguments about the virtues of private enterprises which fail to fully appreciate the economic reality of the public transport industry in Singapore.

Firstly, taxpayers who do not take public transport already contribute to the provision of public transport in the form of taxes that pay for the construction of roads, the development of rail lines and the purchase of the first set of trains on every new MRT line.

Secondly, public transport is an industry rife with market failures which the Minister seems to ignore.  The current regime where SMRT Corporation (SMRT) and SBS Transit (SBST) each provide both rail and bus services provides an illusion of competition.

The reality is that SMRT and SBST have clearly delineated areas of responsibility with no route overlaps.  This makes each of them a de facto monopoly provider in their own particular areas.

Commuters do not have the freedom to switch between providers whenever they choose to, nor do we see public transport operators (PTOs) fighting to acquire and retain customers like airlines do with promotions, discounts and loyalty programmes.

The monopoly status is also reflected in the consistent high returns these companies earn. Freed from the discipline of genuine market competition, they have few incentives to raise service standards and keep prices low.

To say that shareholder discipline will create such incentives is naïve at best, and wrong at worst.  Shareholders seek higher profits, not better or more affordable services.  The government must examine whether a public utility should be owned and operated by what are effectively private monopolists earning monopoly rents.

Mr Lui claims that the current regulatory regime is a “robust” one that does not allow operators to benefit at the expense of commuters.  This is a remarkable assertion once we consider the profits of PTO’s—$215.4 million last year alone.  The fines imposed for not meeting service standards pale in comparison to these profits.

SMRT and SBST have consistently enjoyed high returns on equity (ROE) of above 15 per cent.  For SMRT, it has been above 20 per cent in most years.  In contrast, the median ROE for a Singapore listed company is about 9.5 per cent.

Source: Company financials

A company that provides a public good should not earn such excessively high returns, as these invariably come at the expense service quality and benefits to commuters.  The overcrowded trains and buses show how companies which do not face genuine competition can increase profits and raise shareholder returns at the expense of the commuting public.

Source: SMRT and SBST company financials

As a result of such profit-oriented behaviour, the two PTOs’ high returns have been enjoyed by their shareholders.  For example, SMRT has paid out close to 80 per cent of its net income in recent years. These generous dividends could instead have been used to provide better services or reduced fares. However, it is not possible for publicly-listed firms to do this, as their obligations are to their shareholders.

Public transport as a public good

Mr Lui mentions the “serious” downsides of a nationalised public transport system, while ignoring workable examples—even locally—where the government heavily subsidises public services or even provides services directly to the public.

Schools, for example, are mostly government run. Public hospitals and clinics are heavily subsidised.  Even public housing is subsidised by public money.

Yet when it comes to public transport—an essential service for the majority of Singaporeans—the government advocates its provision by listed corporations, whose first priorities are to their shareholders.
Public transport is a public good that serves a national purpose, in the same way as healthcare, education or public housing.  Thus running it on a cost-recovery basis will create positive externalities if it benefits the overall economy, for example, by getting people to work on time and in comfort.
In the face of the pressing need to provide this public good, it is clear that the present public transport model needs to be overhauled.

WP’s National Transport Corporation proposal

WP has, since 2006, called for the MRT and public buses servicing major trunk routes to be brought under a National Transport Corporation (NTC), which will oversee and provide universal transport services.
NTC should aim to provide safe, affordable, accessible, efficient and reliable universal public transportation services, on the basis of cost and depreciation recovery.  As a not-for-profit corporation owned by the government, NTC will serve the needs of the public and not that of listed company shareholders.
WP’s proposal recognises public transport in Singapore as an inherent monopoly and as a public good.  A well-managed NTC can provide superior outcomes compared to the present profit-oriented monopolies.  We would expect no less from NTC, in terms of efficiency and cost-effectiveness, compared to the way any other statutory board is managed by the government.
To achieve these outcomes, the government should set stringent key performance indicators (KPIs) for the NTC.  These KPIs could include:

• Affordability of fares to ordinary Singaporeans;
• Containment of costs;
• On-time bus and train performance;
• Customer satisfaction ratings (through independent surveys);
• Percentage of public transport ridership;
• Productivity improvements and innovation.

To incentivise their performance, the bonuses and pay increases of NTC executives should be pegged to the achievement of such KPIs, and there could be negative consequences for not meeting them.  This will be more effective in ensuring service standards compared to the present regulatory regime, where the fines imposed on the companies for failure are a pittance compared to their profits.

Conclusion

The current model of provision of public transport has produced many undesirable outcomes, as evidenced by the “crush loads” experienced by commuters every day and the public outcry each time fares are increased.

It would do Singaporeans no good if the government sticks dogmatically to its narrow philosophy of the virtues of privatisation and the profit motive, without considering the true economic reality of the public transport industry in Singapore.

GERALD GIAM
Chair, Media Team
Workers’ Party

–
Workers’ Party Media Contacts:
Email: media@wp.sg

Gerald Giam
Chair, Media Team

Pritam Singh
Vice-Chair, Media Team